If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Parties with out country? At any rate, this all comes back to the state of exception. Or try this one! People are willing to suspend constitutions and democracy to save the state (the government). They know that.

Also, I wonder if there is any candidate more lefty/liberal than Obama that would win at this point? The country has shifted so far to the right, I'm pretty sure the terrorists have won.

"What’s wrong with indefinite detention is not a matter of the logistics of national security or military resources. What’s wrong with indefinite detention is that it is an eradication of a fundamental right upon which American democracy has stood from its founding days — namely, the right not to be incarcerated without evidence, the right not to be summarily "disappeared" on the say-so of one person or agency, the right not to be denied justice.

If the President himself is not willing to embrace as sacred the right to due process for Americans, if he is not willing to risk everything to protect that fundamental constitutional guarantee, if he really believes you can compromise on this basic value, then why should we be surprised that the nation itself is floundering?" - Karen Greenberg, New York Daily News.

These are treasonous actions, right??

also

The president has mercifully agreed to veto the bill that would allow the US military to seize and detain without any due process anyone, including American citizens, who are suspected of terrorism, even in the US itself. A future Republican president might throw torture in with this toxic brew.

The veto is a relief. But the US Senate has thrown its weight behind gutting the core, most basic freedom upon which all others follow: habeas corpus. It has endorsed the notion that the government can do whatever it likes to any citizen it merely suspects of being involved of terrorism. It is a hole through which the entire framework of the constitution could disappear. One more terror attack, and we would have authorized soldiers to break into citizens' homes at will, round up any citizens the government deems suspicious, and deny them any recourse.

ooh. Old article. Turns about Obama's veto consideration was just him going through the motions, to acclimate the public/test reaction (or for any number of fucked up reasons) and that it was Obama himself who requested these provisions be made.

I finally received a message from one of my senators (cornyn) regarding this bill:

Dear Mr. Bartlett (crazy mother fucker who has left five messages):

Thank you for contacting me regarding the military detention and prosecution of terrorists. I appreciate having the benefit of your comments on this important matter.

I do not believe terrorists should be brought to the United States and be granted the same rights and privileges as American criminal defendants. Terrorists should be kept at Guantanamo Bay and prosecuted through the military commissions established by Congress under terms circumscribed by the United States Supreme Court. Trying to hold civilian trials in the United States for terrorists does nothing more than place Americans at risk, while providing terrorists with a platform from which to spew their hate-filled ideology and recruit like-minded fanatics around the world to join them in jihad. We must not forget that we are a nation at war against ruthless killers who wear no uniforms and use civilians as human shields. Treating these war crimes as ordinary criminal acts and trying these killers in a civilian court under the U.S. Constitution is simply reverting to a dangerous, pre-9/11 mentality.

As you may know, Congress passed the Military Commissions Acts of 2006 and 2009, making a powerful statement that U.S. civilian courts are not the appropriate venue to bring terrorists to justice. The military commissions were specifically designed to prevent damaging disclosures and to protect classified information, as well as sensitive sources and methods. We know that these military commissions have a long history in our Republic—dating back from the Revolutionary War and the Civil War, to World War II. They are the most appropriate forum for terrorists to be tried for their crimes.

Therefore, I supported amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (FY 2012 NDAA; S. 1867) regarding terrorist detention practices. Section 1031 of the FY 2012 NDAA would reaffirm the President’s military detention authority under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (P.L. 107—40). Additionally, Section 1032 would require military custody for a certain subset of unprivileged enemy belligerents, members of al-Qaeda and affiliated entities, pending their disposition under the law of war. By its terms, Section 1032 does not apply to U.S. citizens. These provisions were included in the FY 2012 NDAA that was unanimously reported out of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

I appreciate having the opportunity to represent you in the United States Senate. Thank you for taking the time to contact me.

#
(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—
#
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
#
(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

Don’t be confused by anyone claiming that the indefinite detention legislation does not apply to American citizens. It does. There is an exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032 of the bill), but no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial (section 1031 of the bill). So, the result is that, under the bill, the military has the power to indefinitely imprison American citizens, but it does not have to use its power unless ordered to do so. But you don’t have to believe us. Instead, read what one of the bill’s sponsors, Sen. Lindsey Graham said about it on the Senate floor: “1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”

SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE. (a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war. (b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows: (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks. (2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces. (c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following: (1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force. (2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)). (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction. (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.

Congress Approves Provisions for Indefinite Arrests and Detention of US Citizens

, SF Conservative Examiner
December 18, 2011

Enemies of the People & U.S. Constitution; Congressional Traitors Approved Provisions for Indefinite Arrests, and Detentions of U.S. Citizens, with no Due Processes, Mainly Those Who Criticize Government:

S.1867, the National Defense Authorization Act, attacks on our liberties was passed to the dismay of Libertarians all over.

Moving quickly on Christmas Day after the US Senate voted 86 - 14 to pass the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA) which allows for the indefinite military detention of American citizens without charge or trial, Montanans have announced the launch of recall campaigns against Senators Max Baucus and Jonathan Tester, who voted for the bill.

Montana is one of nine states with provisions that say that the right of recall extends to recalling members of its federal congressional delegation, pursuant to Montana Code 2-16-603, on the grounds of physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of oath of office, official misconduct, or conviction of certain felony offenses.

Section 2 of Montana Code 2-16-603 reads:

"(2) A public officer holding an elective office may be recalled by the qualified electors entitled to vote for the elective officer's successor."

The website Ballotpedia.org cites eight other states which allow for the recall of elected federal officials: Arizona, Colorado, Louisiana, Michigan, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, and Wisconsin. New Jersey's federal recall law was struck down when a NJ state judge ruled that "the federal Constitution does not allow states the power to recall U.S. senators," despite the fact the Constitution explicitly allows, by not disallowing ("prohibited" in the Tenth Amendment,) the states the power to recall US senators and congressmen:

"The powers not...prohibited...are reserved to the States...or to the people." - Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The issue of federal official recall has never reached the federal courts.

Montana law requires grounds for recall to be stated which show conformity to the allowed grounds for recall. The draft language of the Montana petitions, "reason for recall" reads:

"The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees all U.S citizens:

"a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed..."

The National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA 2011) permanently abolishes the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, "for the duration of hostilities" in the War on Terror, which was defined by President George W. Bush as "task which does not end" to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001.

Those who voted Aye on December 15th, 2011, Bill of Rights Day, for NDAA 2011 have attempted to grant powers which cannot be granted, which violate both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

The Montana Recall Act stipulates that officials including US senators can only be recalled for physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of the oath of office, official misconduct, or conviction of a felony offense. We the undersigned call for a recall election to be held for Senator Max S. Baucus [and Senator Jonathan Tester] and charge that he has violated his oath of office, to protect and defend the United States Constitution."

The National Defense Authorization Act greatly expands the power and scope of the federal government to fight the War on Terror, including codifying into law the indefinite detention of terrorism suspects without trial. Under the new law the US military has the power to carry out domestic anti-terrorism operations on US soil.

“The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it,” the president said in a statement. “I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists.”

Worse, the NDAA authorizes the military to detain even US citizens under the broad new anti-terrorism provisions provided in the bill, once again without trial.

There is some controversy on this point, in part because the law as written is entirely too vague. But whether or not the law will be used to indefinitely detain US citizens domestically, it is written to allow the detention of US citizens abroad as well as foreigners without trial.

“Obama’s signing statement seems to suggest he already believe he has the authority to indefinitely detain Americans—he just never intends to use it,” Adam Serwer writes at Mother Jones. “Left unsaid, perhaps deliberately, is the distinction that has dominated the debate over the defense bill: the difference between detaining an American captured domestically or abroad. This is why ACLU Director Anthony Romero released a statement shortly after Obama’s arguing the authority in the defense bill could “be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield.”
The NDAA Makes the Status Quo Worse

Glenn Greenwald makes a compelling case that the law gives the government truly frightening powers. He notes that section 1022 exempts US citizens from the requirement of military detention but still leaves the option open to the state.

“The only provision from which U.S. citizens are exempted here is the“requirement” of military detention,” Greenwald writes. “For foreign nationals accused of being members of Al Qaeda, military detention is mandatory; for U.S. citizens, it is optional. This section does not exempt U.S citizens from the presidential power of military detention: only from the requirement of military detention.”

“The most important point on this issue is the same as underscored in the prior two points: the “compromise” reached by Congress includes language preserving the status quo,” he continues. “That’s because the Obama administration already argues that the original 2001 AUMF authorizes them to act against U.S. citizens (obviously, if they believe they have thepower to target U.S. citizens for assassination, then they believe they have the power to detain U.S. citizens as enemy combatants). The proof that this bill does not expressly exempt U.S. citizens or those captured on U.S. soil is that amendments offered by Sen. Feinstein providing expressly for those exemptions were rejected. The “compromise” was to preserve the status quo by including the provision that the bill is not intended to alter it with regard to American citizens, but that’s because proponents of broad detention powers are confident that the status quo already permits such detention.”

In part the National Defense Authorization Act helps to preserve the status quo established a decade ago with the original provisions in the PATRIOT Act giving the government broad new powers in the so-called War on Terror. In part the bill expands those powers, codifying the use of indefinite detention of foreign nationals and possibly US citizens arrested abroad and at home. In part the bill expands the use of the US military on domestic soil, at once complicating anti-terrorism strategies at home and raising serious questions about the role of the military in law enforcement.

All these things should make Americans – and not just Americans – very nervous about the preservation of their civil liberties. That precarious balance between security and liberty is looking ever more tilted toward the former and away from the latter.
The History of Anti-Terrorism is Bad News for Civil Liberties

Just as troubling, these laws suggest that the legal apparatus available to us is insufficient to the task. While due process may work for any other criminal act, terrorism is unique and requires new and expanded powers that ignore the Constitution. These powers are necessary until “hostilities end” – as though terror itself can ever be extinguished.

In the 1970′s the British government began passing a series of anti-terrorism laws that did many of the same things the US government has done since 9/11. At the time, detention without charge was expanded to seven days. Various other powers of arrest and detention were written into law, and these provisions were expanded gradually through the 1980′s as the British government continued to wage its war against the Irish Republican Army.

Far from wiping these laws from the books when the IRA disarmed, many of these laws were simply reinforced by the 2001 Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act and the 2005 Prevention of Terrorism Act.

The problem with fighting a war on terror is that it’s in many ways a war on ideas. The IRA may have disbanded, but that didn’t stop terror from taking a new shape in the form of Al-Qaeda. Britain’s struggle against Irish dissidents may have been a good excuse for earlier anti-terror legislation, but Islamic radicalism is just as potent a threat.
You Can’t Wage a War on an Idea

In the United States the Cold War had barely ended before the threat of terrorism replaced it and, in some ways, became an even more urgent reason to expand government power at the expense of privacy and civil liberties. Unlike the Cold War, Americans have actually died in the War on Terror. Also unlike the Cold War, the enemy we face is not embodied in another country or people, but rather in a form.

Terrorism is a tactic, not a state. It is used to create overreaction in its targets. The initial reaction by the US government to the 9/11 attacks was understandable but wrong-headed. Over a decade after that national tragedy, the government is still overreacting. Each time we allow our fear to undermine our freedom we concede to the very terrorists we hope to defeat.

“The legislation could also give future presidents the authority to throw American citizens into prison for life without charges or a trial,” said Sen. Bernie Sanders in a statement. “This bill also contains misguided provisions that in the name of fighting terrorism essentially authorize the indefinite imprisonment of American citizens without charges. While we must aggressively pursue international terrorists and all of those who would do us harm, we must do it in a way that protects the Constitution and the civil liberties which make us proud to be Americans.”

Time for a Civil Liberties Caucus

Support for the National Defense Authorization Act is decidedly bipartisan. Opponents like Senator Sanders (an independent who describes himself as a socialist) and Rand Paul (a Republican and a libertarian) also come from both sides of the aisle.

The same people tend to be opponents of other civil-liberty-quashing bills like the Stop Online Piracy Act and the Protect IP Act, two bills being debated in congress which would give the government and the industry sponsors of the bills broad new powers over the internet and freedom of speech online.

To me, this underscores the need to look beyond politics as usual.

Technology is changing the way institutions, governments, and individuals interact. The symmetry of power is shifting and governments and non-state actors alike are scrambling to keep up. Sometimes this creates real security threats.

Hacking outfits like Anonymous present a real challenge to governments and corporations. At times these groups may act honorably, attempting to expose corruption. At times they may act without such noble intentions. Either way there is no denying that security is an issue going forward and that the overreaction of governments to a myriad security risks poses its own set of problems and challenges.

I’ve written in the past that people concerned with civil liberties should begin to walk away from the old left-right dichotomy entirely and focus on electing civil libertarians to congress whether these are members of the left like Russ Feingold or of the right like Rand Paul. Of course, both Paul and Feingold will fall short of the ideal civil libertarian when it comes down to it, but both are a far cry better than 90% of their colleagues.

We have few options available to us at this point. The NDAA may be challenged in the courts, and this will almost certainly happen if the president (or a future president) actually makes use of the powers related to US citizens. Even then, however, the courts could come down on either side. The Supreme Court is not exactly filled to the brim with civil libertarians.

Until that time, however, we can try to abandon politics-as-usual and focus on electing politicians who care more about curtailing government excess than expanding government power endlessly in our never-ending War on Terror. And we can use technology, social media, and other tools at our disposal to act outside of politics altogether to work to create alternate institutions and communities.

wait what

Obama
“The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it,” the president said in a statement. “I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists.”

Wow, so you openly admit to being pretty much a fucking failure for signing this bill. That makes it easier to swallow. For sure.

Wow, so you openly admit to being pretty much a fucking failure for signing this bill. That makes it easier to swallow. For sure.

What I want to know, now, is why? I understand there is caution, because some of the people who could be tried may win, even then, unless the government is afraid of a counter-lawsuit, like crimes against humanity, I can't imagine why anyone "who would have reservations" would support it. What is this pressure to sign?

The state Republican Party will require voters to sign a loyalty oath in order to participate in the March 6 presidential primary.

Anyone who wants to vote must sign a form at the polling place pledging to support the eventual Republican nominee for president. Anyone who refuses to sign will be barred from voting in the primary.

During a brief meeting Wednesday at the state Capitol, the State Board of Elections voted 3-0 to approve three forms developed by the election board’s staff to implement the loyalty pledge requested by the state GOP.

In Virginia's 2000 GOP presidential primary, won by Texas Gov. George W. Bush, voters were required to sign a different pledge: "I, the undersigned, state that I do not intend to participate in the nomination process of any other party than the Republican Party."

Virginia has some interesting election rules.

And the ghosts that we knew will flicker from view
And we'll live a long life